Search USGSSearch

USGS · 70268088

Tradeoffs and win-wins between large landscape conservation and wildlife viewing in protected areas

Abstract

Wildlife conservation around protected areas is critical and costly, yet its beneficiaries—particularly protected area visitors who enjoy viewing wide-ranging wildlife—rarely contribute towards landscape-scale conservation. We characterize the importance of wildlife viewing in two U.S. protected areas: Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. We surveyed park visitors ( N = 991) and used the travel cost method to test whether changes in the viewing experience would justify support for visitor-funded conservation. We find that benefits from wildlife viewing are substantial and dependent on protecting wide-ranging species and maintaining their abundance. Large carnivores, particularly grizzly bears, are especially important to wildlife viewers, who are willing to pay more to visit the parks by about 50%. Additionally, we gauged support for three conservation fundraising mechanisms within parks: a mandatory fee, a voluntary fund, and a tax on goods and services. Overall, we find that species population declines could have a greater effect on visitation than that from imposing conservation costs onto visitors, which visitors largely support regardless of income or politics. Our results demonstrate tradeoffs between maintaining visitor experience quality and protected area visitation, with a potential win-win for conservation beneficiaries to contribute towards action at a scale necessary for biodiversity protection.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 42.63727140232976° to 45.04322153561924° latitude; -111.05566890277504° to -108.69188793988411° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Hilary Byerly Flint, Aaron Joey Enriquez, Drew Bennett, Leslie Richardson, Arthur Middleton. 2025-05-05. Tradeoffs and win-wins between large landscape conservation and wildlife viewing in protected areas. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.70051

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Successes and opportunities for solutions-oriented conservation research: Lessons learned from avian science

Conservation science struggles with an ongoing divide between research and action. Given its history of broad public engagement and multi-scale management coordination, avian conservation typifies many of the challenges, successes, and opportunities across the broader field of conservation and is rich with examples that may guide solutions-oriented conservation science. In semi-structured focus groups composed of bird conservation scientists and practitioners from various backgrounds, we discussed the definition, characteristics, and examples of solutions-oriented conservation science. Our discussions highlighted several examples where successful application of avian conservation science led to change in programs, policy, regulations, and social systems, including several with co-benefits for local communities. These successes were characterized by communication, collaboration, and co-development with local communities, decision-makers, practitioners, and Indigenous communities. We identified remaining opportunities for improvement, including aligning incentives and priorities between research and practice, working across disciplines to mobilize solutions, dismantling barriers to inclusion, and emphasizing the importance of relationship-building in conservation science. We outline suggestions that researchers can use to incorporate these lessons from solutions-oriented avian conservation science into training and mentoring programs.

Conservation Science and Practice

Connecting and coordinating conservation action across landscapes through regional planning processes and syntheses

Modern threats to conservation are often global; however, relevant conservation decisions and actions typically occur within local jurisdictions. The socio-ecological complexity of these problems requires collaboration across large landscapes, diverse community interests, and geopolitical boundaries, yet a lack of interoperability of planning products among decision makers, jurisdictions, and objectives impedes collaboration. Here, we provide a working model for the collaborative, iterative development of a landscape conservation design (LCD) in the Midwest region of the United States, the Midwest Conservation Blueprint, and demonstrate its applicability to the coordination of voluntary conservation actions and investments across jurisdictional boundaries. We used spatial prioritization software to synthesize over 20 datasets to develop a basemap of priority lands and waters for conservation across a diverse set of societal and ecological values (e.g., water quality, biodiversity, recreation). The Midwest Conservation Blueprint is a living plan, updated annually based on improvements in underlying data, understanding of local conditions, and public input. Landscape-scale planning is not designed to replace local knowledge or supersede decision-making authorities. However, by synthesizing existing data that represent diverse socio-ecological values and planning at a broader scale, the Midwest Conservation Blueprint documents where there are shared priorities and opportunities for collaborative landscape conservation.

Midwest

Debunking the myth of the quintessential resource manager: Precision in actionable science

“Actionable science” is a widely held standard for identifying the merits of natural resources research. Yet, science is often framed as actionable to a vaguely identified quintessential “manager” without defining either the intended manager or use. Generic descriptions lack precision for identifying end users or their needs, limiting methodological rigor in research design and leading to contextual misalignments of outputs with the need they intended to serve. Further, imprecise terminology limits the ability to evaluate impact, replicate efforts, or foster adoption and implementation of findings. This perspective article presents the heuristic of “who, what, when, where, why, how” to help researchers be more precise when describing their actionable science. Through intentional reflection, researchers can move beyond generic framings of “managers” representing monolithic organizations. “Managers” become individuals, with unique responsibilities, functions, worldviews, and levels of authority, all influencing their use of and need for scientific information and data.

Conservation Science and Practice